tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114514317625059029..comments2015-09-11T09:51:32.382-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Presuppositionalism: Arguments 4, Supports 0Dr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148403526801542902006-05-23T12:58:00.000-04:002006-05-23T12:58:00.000-04:00The actual meat of the original post has been left...The actual meat of the original post has been left almost completely ignored, from what I've read. And that's a shame, because until someone can either 'correct' this analysis of presuppositionalism, or answer the arguments presented, it seems like it's been completely refuted. <BR/><BR/>I'm speaking as an engineer with no formal education in philosophy. Still, I found this post to be succinct and very easily understood. <BR/><BR/>Maybe someone can tell me, and this is an honest question: Why isn't more philosophy presented in terms of syllogisms, with the premises supported, terms defined, etc.? It would be so much easier to get to the heart of the matter, instead of wading through page after tedious page of emotionally charged, barely relevant b.s. For that matter, why not use propositional, first-order, or second-order logic? Is there something magical about syllogisms?Adam M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11623187216119914668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145543274151925272006-04-20T10:27:00.000-04:002006-04-20T10:27:00.000-04:00e-3,The time I've spent on blogging has caught up ...e-3,<BR/><BR/>The time I've spent on blogging has caught up with me so I must be brief and then retire for a while.<BR/><BR/><I>You never answered my question though.</I><BR/><BR/>Your inability to understand an answer does not mean that an answer wasn't given. Read it again.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe the first premise has already been supported by Bahsen, Frame and even Paul on his blog. You just choose to continue to refuse to see it.</I><BR/><BR/>The first premise of TAG is that if universal laws of logic exists, then God exists. <BR/><BR/>Tell me how your statement that "The Christian worldview is correct in that any denial assumes the truth of the Christian worldview and any argument against it ultimately leads to hyper-skepticism and irrationality," has anything to do with this premise. You have not explained why the existence of universal laws of logic demands the existence of God. You have not even supported your assertion that "<I><B>any</I></B> denial of the Christian worldview and any argument against it ultimately leads to hyper-skepticism and irrationality."<BR/><BR/>These are merely assertions. Assertions that no one has supported. <BR/><BR/>Further, presuppositionalists refuse to support it. They try to pass the burden of proof in their own argument.<BR/><BR/>So again, whay does the existence of universal laws of logic demand the existence of the Christian God?exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145498352345920632006-04-19T21:59:00.000-04:002006-04-19T21:59:00.000-04:00Why are you commenting on something I said in anot...<I>Why are you commenting on something I said in another post here?<BR/><BR/>Oh well.<BR/><BR/>The context was my reading of Bahnsen into a disjunctive syllogism. He said that either the Christian's perspective or the non-Christian's perspective was the case. I used two different symbols to express these formally, the other guy used one symbol for both.<BR/><BR/>Neither of the expressions you, rightly mention, represent what Bahnsen said. He was not comparing the Christian worldview with itself so that either it is true or false. He was comparing the Christian worldview with all other possible worldviews. A new symbol best represents this.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes it was posted on another blog but oftentimes if you place a comment on an older blog nobody responds to it. You never answered my question though.<BR/><BR/>anyway, you keep stating that there are a "multitude" of other worldviews. Why? Could there be any number of beliefs that deny the law of non-contradiction is true yet you don't feel the need to refute everyone of them in order to show the Law of Non-contradication is true! Instead you look at it as true or false.<BR/><BR/><I>"If you are a presuppositionalist, support the first premise of TAG."</I><BR/><BR/>I believe the first premise has already been supported by Bahsen, Frame and even Paul on his blog. You just choose to continue to refuse to see it.<BR/><BR/>The Christian worldview is correct in that any denial assumes the truth of the Christian worldview and any argument against it ultimately leads to hyper-skepticism and irrationality.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of instances where Paul has pointed this out in response to atheists.E-3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145482990985802452006-04-19T17:43:00.000-04:002006-04-19T17:43:00.000-04:00centuri0n,The hypothetical argument which you made...centuri0n,<BR/><BR/><I>The hypothetical argument which you made which I think it quite daffy is not a restatement of Paul's argumet, or of Bahnsen's argument. The argument you made is that when the atheist deamnds a definition for God, the theist only says, "God is powerful."</I><BR/><BR/>So, after 1592 words in a post entitled "Presuppositionalism: Arguments 4, Supports 0," you pick 223 words that are not even listed as one of the "four arguments" to discuss.<BR/><BR/>Sure, that sounds about right.<BR/><BR/><I>In that, saying that the TAG advocate is merely saying "God is powerful" to define God is not even reductive: it is misrepresentative.</I><BR/><BR/>This hypothetical conversation has nothing to do with the main post. What is was meant to illustrate is that Christians use this term "God" as if it explains everything. <BR/><BR/>Presuppositionalists push atheists to account for universal laws of logic. If a particular atheist cannot do so, they feel they have proven that Christianity is superior. Asked to account for universal laws of logic themselves they give some kind of answer that relies on this word "God." This is very convenient, but the word "God" is squishy itself. It seems as if it is an answer, but isn't.<BR/><BR/>The hypothetical argument is supposed to prove a point about how flippantly people use the word "God" to justify things. <BR/><BR/>The hypothetical conversation was an attempt to direct attention to a bigger problem. It does that. Of course, a real conversation would not proceed like that. <BR/><BR/>If you really think that the last few words of my post was supposed to be a detailed argument about this position and not just a side note that points out a bigger problem, I have been giving you more credit than you deserve.exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145479859147487752006-04-19T16:50:00.000-04:002006-04-19T16:50:00.000-04:00Responding to EB's comment posted 2:32 PM, April ...<B>Responding to EB's comment posted 2:32 PM, April 19, 2006.</B><BR/>You have to follow me, EB -- and I know it's hard in an unthreaded comment box.<BR/><BR/>The hypothetical argument which you made which I think it quite daffy is not a restatement of Paul's argumet, or of Bahnsen's argument. The argument you made is that when the atheist deamnds a definition for God, the theist only says, "God is powerful."<BR/><BR/>That's not TAG, and that's not Paul's argument. That's your impression of Topo Gigio. God's power is not the foundational issue in TAG: God's ontological position prior to all things is the foundational issue.<BR/><BR/>In that, saying that the TAG advocate is merely saying "God is powerful" to define God is not even reductive: it is misrepresentative.centuri0nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145475137771113252006-04-19T15:32:00.000-04:002006-04-19T15:32:00.000-04:00centuri0n,Thanks for clarifying the puppet/puppete...centuri0n,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for clarifying the puppet/puppeteer analogy. Sorry for misrepresenting you.<BR/><BR/><I>The problem with your hypothetical argument is that it is not even a bad argument -- it's an unrepresentative argument, one which anyone who has been at Christian apologetics for more than a week wouldn't bother with.</I><BR/><BR/>The TAG argument I presented is cut and pasted from Paul Manata and I think can be extrapolated from Bahnsen's work. Are you saying that anyone familiar with Christian apologetics would not say that if there is logic, then God exists?<BR/><BR/>Is TAG not:<BR/><BR/><> P-->Q<BR/><> P<BR/>:.Q<BR/><BR/>(where "P" is logic and "Q" is the Christian God)?<BR/><BR/>Maybe you would care to present the Christian argument the "right way" and explain to the presuppositionalists that their's is an inappropriate apologetic statement.exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145470957514078952006-04-19T14:22:00.000-04:002006-04-19T14:22:00.000-04:00EB:I'll take responsibility for the reason you mis...EB:<BR/><BR/>I'll take responsibility for the reason you missed what I was saying in the puppet metaphor. I wasn't saying "Geez, EB is really arguing with God here." I was saying, "Geez, EB put a Christian sock puppet on his hand and then started an argument with <I>it.</I>" The problem with your hypothetical argument is that it is not even a bad argument -- it's an unrepresentative argument, one which anyone who has been at Christian apologetics for more than a week wouldn't bother with.<BR/><BR/>So in saying we have the puppet arguing with the puppeteer here, I'm saying that you are arguing with the advocate least likely to even try to answer your question robustly that is available to you -- a puppet you control.<BR/><BR/>I'll get back to you in a few minutes on the subject of definitions and the other things you have responded to.centuri0nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145457703432650232006-04-19T10:41:00.000-04:002006-04-19T10:41:00.000-04:00Wow, I really thought that my challenges were stra...Wow, I really thought that my challenges were straightforward. I asked presuppositionalists to support the arguments they put forward. Maybe I should read something into this refusal.<BR/><BR/>E-3,<BR/><BR/>Why are you commenting on something I said in <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/04/justifying-tag-part-2-response-to-paul.html" REL="nofollow">another post</A> here?<BR/><BR/>Oh well.<BR/><BR/>The context was my reading of Bahnsen into a disjunctive syllogism. He said that either the Christian's perspective or the non-Christian's perspective was the case. I used two different symbols to express these formally, the other guy used one symbol for both.<BR/><BR/>Neither of the expressions you, rightly mention, represent what Bahnsen said. He was not comparing the Christian worldview with itself so that either it is true or false. He was comparing the Christian worldview with all other possible worldviews. A new symbol best represents this.<BR/><BR/>How about this E-3. If you are a presuppositionalist, support the first premise of TAG.exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145410184525663752006-04-18T21:29:00.000-04:002006-04-18T21:29:00.000-04:00ex,You really should be careful when accusing me o...ex,<BR/><BR/><I>You really should be careful when accusing me of misusing formal logic. I'm pretty good at it.<BR/><BR/>If P equals "the Christian world view," ~P would equal "not the Christian world view." My cat is "not the Christian world view." So, are you saying that the Christian world view is true or my cat is true? That would be a mistake, huh?</I><BR/><BR/>So a negation of a particular proposition includes your cat?<BR/><BR/><B>Negation can be expressed as "it is false that" or "it is not the case that" (Copi)</B>E-3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145313065362190402006-04-17T18:31:00.000-04:002006-04-17T18:31:00.000-04:00Wrote that before your second comment.What is the ...Wrote that before your second comment.<BR/><BR/>What is the Christian foundation for knowledge? That magical word "God"?<BR/><BR/>But let's not get side-tracked. This post is about the premises of presuppositionalism.<BR/><BR/>Can you support the first premise of TAG?<BR/><BR/>Can you support the first premise of Bahnsen's argument that precedes TAG?<BR/><BR/>I'm very interested.exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145312760064249772006-04-17T18:26:00.000-04:002006-04-17T18:26:00.000-04:00Hi, centuri0n.I love that old reformed saying abou...Hi, centuri0n.<BR/><BR/>I love that old reformed saying about babies sitting on father's lap slapping them in the face; we can only do the act because he is supporting us. Now the puppet playing arguing with the puppeteer. Good stuff. Would be a little better if you could give a reason or two to believe that a puppeteer existed, but I guess I'll settle for you non-answers.<BR/><BR/>Definitions are meant to tell you about something you know nothing about. So let's look at yours and see what we discover about god.<BR/><BR/>creator--all creators I know create something from something else, right? Are there any other ex nihilo creators? No. So what you are saying is that this thing "God" is a creator, but unlike any other creator. So the adjective doesn't really mean any thing to me because I have no experience with ex nihilo "creators."<BR/><BR/>sustainer of all things--sustains every atom in the universe? Is that what you mean? What do you mean that god is a sustainer?<BR/><BR/>holy--literally "set apart." So God is unlike any thing that I have ever experienced. What is this supposed to tell me again?<BR/><BR/>just--but in a way that says it is okay to kill Amalikite infants because of sins committed 400 years earlier. Oh, just in a way unlike any justice I understand.<BR/><BR/>merciful--but can threaten to send an army to rape women if they disobey. but must have blood for offenses. So, you mean "merciful" in a way that is different than any other being.<BR/><BR/>loving--but loving in a way that creates an eternal hell and laughs at the wicked who are sent there. Loving in a way that I don't understand.<BR/><BR/>revealed in creation--how again?<BR/><BR/>through special verbal revelation--the Qu'ran or the Bible or both?<BR/><BR/>Jesus--the guy who through evil spirits into a bunch of pigs causing them to run off a cliff, causing their unnecessary deaths and a farmers financial loss?<BR/><BR/>Doesn't help much.<BR/><BR/>By the way, would you be willing to justify the first premise of TAG for me? Or respond, in any way, to this post. It's getting lonely here.<BR/><BR/>First premise of TAG? Anyone? Anyone?exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145312259019844982006-04-17T18:17:00.000-04:002006-04-17T18:17:00.000-04:00I think E-3's point is exact Aristotle's point (wh...I think E-3's point is exact Aristotle's point (which is probably no surprise to anyone). One of the strange elements of Aristotle's <I>Metaphysics</I> is Aristotle's confession that the philosopher's work is <I>not</I> science but in fact something else -- something <I>prior</I> to science and <I>necessary</I> for science to do its work.<BR/><BR/>For example, in Book IV, Chapter 1, A says, <I>"THERE is a science which investigates being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature. Now this is not the same as any of the so-called special sciences; for none of these others treats universally of being as being."</I><BR/><BR/>That is to say, Aristotle believed in indisputable foundations for knowledge. Even if the only one he posited was non-contradiction (and I think that's not the only one, but you can read <I>Metaphysics</I> for yourself), plainly he calls people who reject this idea uneducated and ill-informed.<BR/><BR/>E-3's point is that the atheist foundation is wrong and the Christian foundation is right. It ought to be the center of this debate, but it gets shuttled out to the sides of the debate -- and I don't understand why. If the atheist foundation is the self-evident one, it ought to have the Christian by the tail.<BR/><BR/>Instead, the application of atheist premises are simply never tested against the Christian premises to explain what they both claim they can explain. Or rather, the plausibility and reasonability of the two are never weighed out.<BR/><BR/>I'm in for making the comparison. It's the only ground upon wich this debate can get settled.centuri0nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145310133290950912006-04-17T17:42:00.000-04:002006-04-17T17:42:00.000-04:00This last post left me somewhat confused. Most co...This last post left me somewhat confused. Most confusing was the last case -- which as the worst case of the puppet arguing with the puppeteer I have ever encountered.<BR/><BR/>Here's a definition of God for you that might pose a bigger problem for your example, and if you think it does not I'd like to read your thoughts on the matter:<BR/><BR/>"God is the creator and sustainer of all things, who is holy, just, merciful and loving; He has revealed Himself to man through creation, through special verbal revelation, and most importantly through the person and work of Jesus Christ."<BR/><BR/>Thanks.centuri0nhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145305920125764222006-04-17T16:32:00.000-04:002006-04-17T16:32:00.000-04:00E-3,Dont know much about non-contradiction do you?...E-3,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dont know much about non-contradiction do you? <BR/><BR/>The Law of non-contradiction is axiomatic in that it is impossible to form any valid argument against it. I assume you know what an axiom is?<BR/><BR/>Aristotle stated that the Law of non-Contradiction can only be proven by showing opponents of the principle that they are in fact committed to it. This is another way of saying that its axiomatic and is impossible to form any attack against it. <BR/><BR/>non-contradiction is self-evident.Aaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04603401603498840923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145168182383984092006-04-16T02:16:00.000-04:002006-04-16T02:16:00.000-04:00E-3,I'm really struggling to find your point here....E-3,<BR/><BR/>I'm really struggling to find your point here.<BR/><BR/>Where are you going with this and what does this have to do with anything I've said in my post? Are you just giving me a quiz?<BR/><BR/>If you read what I wrote in my last post, you would know that I have no problem with transcendental arguments, just that the transcendental argument for the existence of God is unsupported.<BR/><BR/>If you've read what I've written on laws of logic, you would know how I justify the laws of logic.<BR/><BR/>So, really, make a point here. If you hold to TAG, justify the first premise. Explain the other points that I made.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, wait until there is a post more relevant to your questions.exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145164732973377152006-04-16T01:18:00.000-04:002006-04-16T01:18:00.000-04:00ex,First off I should say that by proof I mean not...ex,<BR/><BR/>First off I should say that by proof I mean not "What could you do to convince someone of truth x" for there are many people when provided proof of something stll stubbornly hold onto their beliefs. Rather I am talking about supporting the truth x by giving evidences.<BR/><BR/>In responding to your answers I will take them in reverse order:<BR/><BR/><I>E-3 said: "2. In order to show that 2+2=4 would you have to refute that 2+2=0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=5, 2+2=6, etc...is not correct?"<BR/><BR/>ex said: "No.... So, the answer to your questions is that it breaks down if someone doesn't accept the rules.... How can I respond to that? I can't. We are playing by different rules. If neither of us accept the other's rules, we cannot continue to play... If someone denied 2+2=4, I could only explain that it does. I could not "prove" it."</I><BR/><BR/>So you agree that not every separate possible answer needs to be refuted... that's because they are mutually exclusive. This was my whole point in this question. 2+2 can't equal 4 and 5. So anyone who says 2+2 equals something other than 4 needs to be refuted based on what they believe the "true" answer is but I would only need to show that 2+2=4 is the correct answer.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, in your response you seem to be saying "we are playing by different rules - I'm taking my ball and going home!" But I can't believe you really think that because otherwise you wouldn't even be posting on this blog?!?!? Why would you waste so much time trying to refute Christianity instead of saying - "You know those Christians - they just play by different rules - I am going to pop some popcorn, crack open a soda and watch a movie instead?"<BR/><BR/><I>E-3 said: "1. If someone told you they didn't believe in the law of non-contradiction how would you prove it to them? <BR/><BR/>ex said: "I couldn't. All I could do is repeat what the law is explicitly or through analogy... If someone denied the law of non-contradiction, the only thing I could do is explain what the law is. I could not "prove" it."</I><BR/><BR/>So you can't prove what you believe to be one of the most fundamental truths on which everything else is built? Yet you still believe it... is that not blind faith?<BR/><BR/>Anyway there is the proof that Aquinas gave to show that the Law of Non-contradiction is true... the impossibility of the contrary. When Aquinas put forth his proof - did he have in mind that he needed to refute every particular belief that denied the Law of Non-contradiction... no.. instead he held that if you deny the Law of Non-contradiction then everything becomes unintelligible... logic and language lose all meaning.E-3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145147020388055102006-04-15T20:23:00.000-04:002006-04-15T20:23:00.000-04:00E-3,Two words:Red-herring.Do you prefer to answer ...E-3,<BR/><BR/>Two words:<BR/><BR/>Red-herring.<BR/><BR/>Do you prefer to answer my objections by shifting the burden of proof to me? You must be a presuppositionalist, huh?<BR/><BR/>But I'll bite anyway,<BR/><BR/><I>1. If someone told you they didn't believe in the law of non-contradiction how would you prove it to them?</I> <BR/><BR/>I couldn't. All I could do is repeat what the law is explicitly or through analogy.<BR/><BR/>How would you answer this person?<BR/><BR/><I>2. In order to show that 2+2=4 would you have to refute that 2+2=0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=5, 2+2=6, etc...is not correct?</I><BR/><BR/>No.<BR/><BR/>But let me rephrase your questions in a more philosophical way. <BR/><BR/>In <I>Philosophical Investigations</I> (185), Wittgenstein presented a scenario in which he imagined teaching a student to write a series of numbers in which every number has added two to it (e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.). He writes, "Now we get the pupil to continue a series (say +2) beyond 100--and he writes 1000, 1004, 1008, 1012. We say to him: 'Look what you've done!'--He doesn't understand. We say: 'You were meant to add two: look how you began the series!'--He answers: 'Yes, isn't it right? I thought that was how I was <I>meant</I> to do it.'--Or suppose he pointed to the series and siad: 'But I went on in the same way.'--It would now be no use to say: 'But can't you see . . . .?'--and repeat the old examples and explanations."<BR/><BR/>So, the answer to your questions is that it breaks down if someone doesn't accept the rules.<BR/><BR/>Another example. Let's say I'm playing tennis with someone. My serve lands about a foot deep in the corner of the service box. My opponent cries, "Out." I explain to him that the ball landed a foot inside the service box, and he agrees with me. I think the problem is resolved and say, "Then, okay, it's my point or we can play a let." He responds, "No, the ball was 'out.'" I say, "But you just admitted that it was a foot inside the service box!" He says, "I consider a ball that lands there 'out.'" I say, "But the rules of tennis say that it is 'in.'" He replies, "That is not how I read the rules."<BR/><BR/>How can I respond to that? I can't. We are playing by different rules. If neither of us accept the other's rules, we cannot continue to play.<BR/><BR/>If someone denied the law of non-contradiction, the only thing I could do is explain what the law is. I could not "prove" it.<BR/><BR/>If someone denied 2+2=4, I could only explain that it does. I could not "prove" it.<BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not sure that you are asking because you are a Christian, but if you are, I would appreciate it if you responded to your own questions.<BR/><BR/>If someone denied the law of non-contradiction, would your proof of it be to utter the magical word "God"? If someone denied that 2+2=4, would you prove it by saying that it is so because of "God"?exbelieverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145146298315134912006-04-15T20:11:00.000-04:002006-04-15T20:11:00.000-04:00What about Descartes here? He sought to know some...What about Descartes here? He sought to know something indubitably with apodictic certainty...something impervious to any doubting whatsoever. What Descartes concluded was that he knows he has doubts. So long as he was doubting he knew he existed (notice, it was only while he was thinking and doubting). Yet, Betrand Russell argued that Descartes was not fully consistent in his doubting because the only thing Descartes could actualy know with apodictic certainty was that "doubts exist." To conclude there must be a doubter isn't warranted, Russell argued.<BR/><BR/>In the process Descartes doubted whether or not the axioms of math were true becaue some evil demon might be deceiving him with regard to this. <BR/><BR/>The thing is this. If something is not known with apodictic certainty, then it's possible the one claiming to know something is wrong, especially when we're dealing with metaphysics. <BR/><BR/>Now apply this to TAG. In the first place, Taggers present this argument as if it cannot be doubted since to doubt it is to use logic, and to assess it's probability is to assume the inductive principles of logic and reasoning. But it surely can be doubted, as exbeliever is effectively arguing.<BR/><BR/>Logic supposedly is to be based in God, but the fact that Taggers base their views of God on the Bible has no connection with the argument itself....it is a non-sequitor, and it assumes the Protestant canon is God's canon, that they have properly interpreted it, and that the events have all happened as reported, even though they "happened" during a very superstitious pre-scientific era.<BR/><BR/>Taggers think their argument supports some kind of God but their definition of God results in a non-defensible theological quagmire. How can a being such as the one they believe exist when there are so many inconsistencies with believing in a Trinity, the incarnation, Open theism vs Classical theism, etc. <BR/><BR/>Let Taggers now show that these laws of logic represent the way God thinks. Let them show that God could not have created a world with a different logic (there have been Christian thinkers who have argued for this, like Ockham, I believe). Let them show that this God of theirs isn't a demon in disguise. Let them give an answer to the Euthyphro dilemna.<BR/><BR/>No wonder TAG has no real scholarly defenders. But what puzzles me is that so many of the Taggers I see do nothing but study that one argument and defend it alone.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1145144828502405802006-04-15T19:47:00.000-04:002006-04-15T19:47:00.000-04:00ex,Two questions:1. If someone told you they didn'...ex,<BR/><BR/>Two questions:<BR/><BR/>1. If someone told you they didn't believe in the law of non-contradiction how would you prove it to them?<BR/><BR/>2. In order to show that 2+2=4 would you have to refute that 2+2=0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=5, 2+2=6, etc...is not correct?E-3noreply@blogger.com